gapup-mcp

arbitration_awards_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Commercial arbitration intelligence for litigation lawyers, M&A due diligence teams, sovereign wealth funds and trade finance compliance. Covers 8 major institutions: ICC, AAA, LCIA, HKIAC, SIAC, CIETAC, DIAC, ICDR.

Three modes: • party_lookup — find awards by party name (searches 20 landmark public awards + JusMundi best-effort) • institution_index — browse awards and caseload stats per institution with date range filter • clause_check — audit an arbitration clause for missing elements (institution, seat, language, arbitrator count, governing law, binding nature)

Note: Most arbitration awards are confidential. This tool surfaces public awards (Yukos, Crystallex, Achmea, etc.) plus redacted statistics from institutional annual reports. Private awards are not accessible.

Cache: 24h (arbitration data is very stable). No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	party_lookup: search by party name or keyword. institution_index: browse awards by institution + stats. clause_check: audit an arbitration clause for issues.
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`query`	Yes	For party_lookup: party name or keyword (e.g. "Yukos", "Russia"). For institution_index: institution name or keyword. For clause_check: full text of the arbitration clause to audit.
`date_to`	No	ISO date filter to (YYYY-MM-DD). Applied to award_date.
`date_from`	No	ISO date filter from (YYYY-MM-DD). Applied to award_date.
`institution`	No	Filter by institution. Default 'all'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`awards`	No
`status`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`clause_check`	No
`quality_score`	Yes
`institution_stats`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: confidentiality of awards, 24-hour cache stability, and no API key requirement. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: audience, covered institutions, three modes, confidentiality note, and caching info. It is front-loaded with essential purpose and concise with no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 3 modes, 8 institutions, confidentiality constraints) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: modes, institutions, confidentiality, caching, and authentication.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mode-specific guidance for the 'query' parameter and explains how each mode uses it, providing additional meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: commercial arbitration intelligence with three distinct modes (party_lookup, institution_index, clause_check). It specifies the target audience and covers 8 major institutions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'legal_clause_extractor'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implicit guidance by explaining that most awards are confidential and that the tool only surfaces public awards and redacted statistics. It mentions caching and lack of API key, but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools for when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?